The Nuclear debate

[nut]

12.7 MEh

Bet some of the public don't know about or realize that either.

Your opinion of the public is pretty low…. Most plastics are made from oil, who doesn’t know this? your phone has parts made from oil.. it’s no secret.

 

[peetoo]

The paint used to post the slogan ‘just stop oil’. Yep made from oil

 

[Forward Press]

The paint used to post the slogan ‘just stop oil’. Yep made from oil

I detest these kinds of arguments (which are invariably used to make fun of environmentalist movements). I bet I cannot protest against non-renewable energy because I drive a car with an internal combustion engine to work, right?

 

[nut]

So this is the NSW wholesale rate ATM.. HTF is Nuclear going to fit into the mix?
Because the FIT is negative my system is not exporting anything… meaning there is massive amounts of renewables standing by… waiting for something to absorb it. Storage!!! Snowy 2 etc…
Anyone who thinks Nuclear is going to work has no idea.

 

[Festerz]

And an argument that this transition is not viable because the carbon footprint is too big at the start is bogus.

That is of course, not my argument and not even close to understanding the focus and summary of my post and the links attached. FFS - my posts on this issue including in the Dutton/Albanese thread have been all about the 'transition' issue with links to detailed academic reports on them.

What I see in your and nut's response to my posts is what is called a 'red herring fallacy' - putting forward misleading summaries/assessments of my comment and links in order to make irrelevant or false inferences to suit your narrative.

It's something I see play out in social media and in SRP threads on SRP all the time in order to create a false binary either/or debate. Aimed at dumbing down discussion into 2 extremes to create political conflict without any understanding or recognition of the nuance that pervades every discussion of science and economics. Black v White - no shades of grey.

I'm not in the mood to play this game on this issue so argue amongst yourselves.

 

[nut]

That is of course, not my argument and not even close to understanding the focus and summary of my post and the links attached. FFS - my posts on this issue including in the Dutton/Albanese thread have been all about the 'transition' issue with links to detailed academic reports on them.

What I see in your and nut's response to my posts is what is called a 'red herring fallacy' - putting forward misleading summaries/assessments of my comment and links in order to make irrelevant or false inferences to suit your narrative.

It's something I see play out in social media and in SRP threads on SRP all the time in order to create a false binary either/or debate. Aimed at dumbing down discussion into 2 extremes to create political conflict without any understanding or recognition of the nuance that pervades every discussion of science and economics. Black v White - no shades of grey.

I'm not in the mood to play this game on this issue so argue amongst yourselves.

Oh poor you ….
You made the claims that no one talks about fossil fuel being used to make renewables.
Facts 50g of CO2 to make a Solar panel that will produce more than 12Mwh …
The same 12Mwh fossil fuels would be 1000gs.
No one talks about it because it’s irrelevant.

 

[peetoo]

I detest these kinds of arguments (which are invariably used to make fun of environmentalist movements). I bet I cannot protest against non-renewable energy because I drive a car with an internal combustion engine to work, right?

View attachment 2192693

Sorry was tounge in cheek

 

[Carringbush2010]

That is of course, not my argument and not even close to understanding the focus and summary of my post and the links attached. FFS - my posts on this issue including in the Dutton/Albanese thread have been all about the 'transition' issue with links to detailed academic reports on them.

What I see in your and nut's response to my posts is what is called a 'red herring fallacy' - putting forward misleading summaries/assessments of my comment and links in order to make irrelevant or false inferences to suit your narrative.

It's something I see play out in social media and in SRP threads on SRP all the time in order to create a false binary either/or debate. Aimed at dumbing down discussion into 2 extremes to create political conflict without any understanding or recognition of the nuance that pervades every discussion of science and economics. Black v White - no shades of grey.

I'm not in the mood to play this game on this issue so argue amongst yourselves.

Couldn't have put it better.

 

[Festerz]

Oh poor you ….
You made the claims that no one talks about fossil fuel being used to make renewables.

No I didn't.

There you go again with the straw man. Claiming people are saying things they aren't because you can't be bothered to stop and think and understand context.

What I did do was link to what I found a long an interesting twitter thread and referenced parts of it. A link that I know you didn't even read because you went off on a tangent that was in complete contrast to what the author was saying.

This is what he said about transition his character limited strong of posts btw.






Now I couldn't give a flying feck whether you agree or disagree with what I post or the links I post as information. You're free to make up your own mind. This is a discussion forum and alternative views, when properly argued and backed with facts, should be welcomed.

But what really ticks me off is lazy one sided attacking posts that not only mis-state the context of the posts they're responding to but deliberately misquote them to suit a binary political narrative.

/ rant.

 

[Festerz]

Oh btw - for the benefit of nut, QuietB and others, guess what my source of those links to Ed Conway's tweets and work came from?



That's right, it was from Simon Holmes à Court - the billionaire climate change activist and convenor of Climate 200 that played such a pivotal role in getting so called Teal candidates standing in key seats at the last Federal election. He is also a senior advisor to the Climate and Energy College at the University of Melbourne, as director of the Smart Energy Council and the Australian Environmental Grant-makers Network.

Climate 200's goal is to promote discussion and debate on a science-based approach to climate change and to restoring integrity in politics. And to break away from the polarised binary debate that has dominated political discussion on energy policy in Australia for many decades.

Now if it's good enough for someone of that calibre to promote the links to those of Conway and to have them considered as part of the broader facts based discussion on the energy transition debate in Australia (even if he disagrees with the context and conclusions presented), then I think it's maybe good enough for 'Knuckle draggers' like me to consider them too.

 

[nut]

No I didn't.

There you go again with the straw man. Claiming people are saying things they aren't because you can't be bothered to stop and think and understand context.

What I did do was link to what I found a long an interesting twitter thread and referenced parts of it. A link that I know you didn't even read because you went off on a tangent that was in complete contrast to what the author was saying.

This is what he said about transition his character limited strong of posts btw.






Now I couldn't give a flying feck whether you agree or disagree with what I post or the links I post as information. You're free to make up your own mind. This is a discussion forum and alternative views, when properly argued and backed with facts, should be welcomed.

But what really ticks me off is lazy one sided attacking posts that not only mis-state the context of the posts they're responding to but deliberately misquote them to suit a binary political narrative.

/ rant.

No it’s lazy… picking out one social media thread to suit a narrative.. for what reason?
the advancements are real..
Pollution stats are falling at an incredible rate in all Chinese cities. Beijing was basically surrounded in smog 15-20 years ago.
Yes china’s energy requirements are ever increasing, but their share of renewables is increasing massively and they are the driver of every other country’s ability to reduce their emissions.
With out chinas influence we would be no where near where we are today.
Of course there is a cost on a transition…. China is bearing that cost more than any other country on the planet.
Let’s focus on countries that are delaying the transition by imposing tariffs on the Chinese lead transition.

 

[nut]

Oh btw - for the benefit of nut, QuietB and others, guess what my source of those links to Ed Conway's tweets and work came from?

View attachment 2193092



That's right, it was from Simon Holmes à Court - the billionaire climate change activist and convenor of Climate 200 that played such a pivotal role in getting so called Teal candidates standing in key seats at the last Federal election. He is also a senior advisor to the Climate and Energy College at the University of Melbourne, as director of the Smart Energy Council and the Australian Environmental Grant-makers Network.

Climate 200's goal is to promote discussion and debate on a science-based approach to climate change and to restoring integrity in politics.

Now if it's good enough for someone of that calibre to promote the links to those of Conway and to have them considered as part of the broader facts based discussion on the energy transition debate in Australia then I think it's maybe good enough for 'Knuckle draggers' like me.

We are fighting the same battle .. I’ll admit I’ve got no idea what your point is.
Highlighting the cost .. and there is one…. And there will continue to be one is simply dumb IMO, unless you provide an alternative.
I’m excited by the advancements being made.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No it’s lazy… picking out one social media thread to suit a narrative.. for what reason?
the advancements are real..
Pollution stats are falling at an incredible rate in all Chinese cities. Beijing was basically surrounded in smog 15-20 years ago.
Yes china’s energy requirements are ever increasing, but their share of renewables is increasing massively and they are the driver of every other country’s ability to reduce their emissions.
With out chinas influence we would be no where near where we are today.
Of course there is a cost on a transition…. China is bearing that cost more than any other country on the planet.
Let’s focus on countries that are delaying the transition by imposing tariffs on the Chinese lead transition.

A huge amount of the smog in asia was caused by :
a) small two stroke engines, that put out way more pollution per kw than any 4 stroke engine.
b) wood fires.

CO2, which is the big issue, does not cause visible smog. You won't smell it, you won't see it, plants will like it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No it’s lazy… picking out one social media thread to suit a narrative.. for what reason?
the advancements are real..
Pollution stats are falling at an incredible rate in all Chinese cities. Beijing was basically surrounded in smog 15-20 years ago.
Yes china’s energy requirements are ever increasing, but their share of renewables is increasing massively and they are the driver of every other country’s ability to reduce their emissions.
With out chinas influence we would be no where near where we are today.
Of course there is a cost on a transition…. China is bearing that cost more than any other country on the planet.
Let’s focus on countries that are delaying the transition by imposing tariffs on the Chinese lead transition.

Seriously? They undercut every manufacturer on the planet. If they didn't want to pay the cost you don't do that.
Part and parcel. Their whole strategy has been to pay their workers chicken feed so they win the business.
If you want manufacturing efficiency, go to Europe or Japan.

 

[nut]

Seriously? They undercut every manufacturer on the planet. If they didn't want to pay the cost you don't do that.
Part and parcel. Their whole strategy has been to pay their workers chicken feed so they win the business.
If you want manufacturing efficiency, go to Europe or Japan.

VW about to go broke.. Nissan, Mazda and Mitsubishi merging … efficient? Legacy manufacturing are getting their pants pulled down by the growth in Chinese EVs…

It’s bit f$&king rich for us, the west, who benefit from our way of life on the back of the chinese, because we shifted our manufacturing to China are now complaining !!!!
Let’s find things we do well and TRADE!!! and not sook because we don’t like the game anymore.
Or be lazy and apply Tariffs.

 

[peetoo]

Seriously? They undercut every manufacturer on the planet. If they didn't want to pay the cost you don't do that.
Part and parcel. Their whole strategy has been to pay their workers chicken feed so they win the business.
If you want manufacturing efficiency, go to Europe or Japan.

Our on going illusion that china hasn’t got the most expertise in manufacture. They just copy superior nations right?

 

[kranky al]

I detest these kinds of arguments (which are invariably used to make fun of environmentalist movements). I bet I cannot protest against non-renewable energy because I drive a car with an internal combustion engine to work, right?

View attachment 2192693

Medieval knights chortling with the irony of peasants cutting them down with the scythes the lord provided…

 

[kranky al]

The paint used to post the slogan ‘just stop oil’. Yep made from oil

Linseed oil or synthetic….. I mean not to burst your piss weak balloon ….